Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 14, pp 3621–3636 | Cite as

When introduced equals invasive: normative use of “invasive” with ascidians

  • Patricio Javier PereyraEmail author
  • Matías Ocampo Reinaldo
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Coastal and marine biodiversity

Abstract

This study aimed to understand the use of “invasive species” as a normative concept and discuss its implications in conservation science, using introduced ascidians worldwide as model species. A specific search in Web of Science was performed and articles suitable for analysis were selected. Each article was classified according to the type of environment, species under study, type of effects and spread that ascidians are linked to. Most of the 184 articles analysed did not consider dispersal or effects as study subject (82 and 71%, respectively). Most research was conducted in laboratory conditions (41%) or human-made environments (32%) or indicating few escapes to natural environments. Almost half of the articles (47%) were made with the six more conspicuous introduced ascidians and this raised to 70% while considering articles that worked with two or more (pooled) species. The normative use of “invasive” is widely used regarding introduced ascidians. Spread and effects, necessary conditions to consider a species as invasive, are notoriously understudied. Most research was not conducted in natural environments and over a few species, weakening the perception of introduced ascidians as a conservation problem. To discuss the extent of the normative use of invasion science is important to distinguish two phenomena: are some species intrinsically problematic for conservation (i.e. invasive) or is the movement of non-native species (i.e. biological invasion) the conservation problem? By using invasive as a normative concept, we risk ending with a weakened concept potentially hindering the progress of invasion science.

Keywords

Ascidians Normative use Invasive Effects Dispersion Human-made environments 

Supplementary material

10531_2018_1617_MOESM1_ESM.docx (49 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 48 kb)

References

  1. Aldred N, Clare AS (2014) Mini-review: impact and dynamics of surface fouling by solitary and compound ascidians. Biofouling 30:259–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barney JN, Tekiela DR, Dollete ES, Tomasek BJ (2013) What is the “real” impact of invasive plant species? Front Ecol Environ 11:322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellard C, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2016) Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol Lett 12:20150623CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackburn TM, Pyšek P, Bacher S et al (2011) A proposed unified framework for biological invasions. Trends Ecol Evol 26:333–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Blum JC, Chang AL, Liljesthröm M et al (2007) The non-native solitary ascidian Ciona intestinalis (L.) depresses species richness. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunson JC (2017) ggalluvial: alluvial diagrams in ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.5.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggalluvial
  7. Bullard SG, Lambert G, Carman MR et al (2007) The colonial ascidian Didemnum sp. A: current distribution, basic biology and potential threat to marine communities of the northeast and west coasts of North America. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castilla JC, Guiñez R, Caro AU, Ortiz V (2004a) Invasion of a rocky intertidal shore by the tunicate Pyura praeputialis in the Bay of Antofagasta, Chile. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:8517–8524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Castilla JC, Lagos NA, Cerda M (2004b) Marine ecosystem engineering by the alien ascidian Pyura praeputialis on a mid-intertidal rocky shore. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castilla JC, Manríquez PH, Delgado A et al (2014) Rocky intertidal zonation pattern in Antofagasta, Chile: invasive species and shellfish gathering. PLoS ONE 9:e110301CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Chew MK (2015) Ecologists, environmentalists, experts, and the invasion of the second greatest threat. Int Rev Env Hist 1:7–40Google Scholar
  12. Chew M, Carroll SP (2011) The invasive ideology: biologists and conservationists are too eager to demonize non-native species. Scientist 7Google Scholar
  13. Cima F, Ballarin L, Caicci F et al (2015) Life history and ecological genetics of the colonial ascidian Botryllus schlosseri. Zool Anz 257:54–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Çinar ME (2016) The alien ascidian Styela clava now invading the Sea of Marmara (Tunicata: Ascidiacea). ZooKeys.  https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.563.6836 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Colautti RI, MacIsaac HJ (2004) A neutral terminology to define “invasive”species. Divers Distrib 10:135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collin SB, Edwards PK, Leung B, Johnson LE (2013) Optimizing early detection of non-indigenous species: estimating the scale of dispersal of a nascent population of the invasive tunicate Ciona intestinalis (L.). Mar Pollut Bull 73:64–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Comeau LA, Filgueira R, Guyondet T, Sonier R (2015) The impact of invasive tunicates on the demand for phytoplankton in longline mussel farms. Aquaculture 441:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Comeau LA, Sonier R, Guyondet T et al (2017) Behavioural response of bivalve molluscs to calcium hydroxide. Aquaculture 466:78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis MA (2009) Invasion biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis MA, Thompson K (2000) Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader: a proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. Bull Ecol Soc Am 81:226–230Google Scholar
  21. Davis MA, Chew MK, Hobbs RJ et al (2011) Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature 474:153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellis EC, Ramankutty N (2008) Putting people in the map: antropogenic biomes of the world. Front Ecol Evol 6:439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Filip N, Pustam A, Ells V, Grosicki KMT, Yang J, Oguejiofor I, Bishop CD, DeMont ME, Smith-Palmer T, Wyeth RC (2016) Fouling-release and chemical activity effects of a siloxane-based material on tunicates. Mar Environ Res 116:41–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Fletcher LM, Forrest BM, Bell JJ (2013) Impacts of the invasive ascidian Didemnum vexillum on green-lipped mussel Perna canaliculus aquaculture in New Zealand. Aquac Environ Interact 4:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gittenberger A (2007) Recent population expansions of non-native ascidians in The Netherlands. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldstien SJ, Dupont L, Viard F et al (2011) Global phylogeography of the widely introduced North West Pacific ascidian Styela clava. PLoS ONE 6:e16755CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Guerin GR, Martín-Forés I, Sparrow B, Lowe AJ (2018) The biodiversity impacts of non-native species should not be extrapolated from biased single-species studies. Biodivers Conserv 27:785–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heger T, Saul W-C, Trepl L (2013) What biological invasions “are” is a matter of perspective. J Nat Conserv 21:93–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hodges KE (2008) Defining the problem: terminology and progress in ecology. Front Ecol Environ 6:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huang X, Gao Y, Jiang B et al (2016) Reference gene selection for quantitative gene expression studies during biological invasions: a test on multiple genes and tissues in a model ascidian Ciona savignyi. Gene 576:79–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hulme PE, Pyšek P, Jarošík V et al (2013) Bias and error in understanding plant invasion impacts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:212–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kanamori M, Baba K, Natsuike M, Goshima S (2017) Life history traits and population dynamics of the invasive ascidian, Ascidiella aspersa, on cultured scallops in Funka Bay, Hokkaido, northern Japan. J Mar Biol Assoc 97:387–399Google Scholar
  33. Kueffer C, Pyšek P, Richardson DM (2013) Integrative invasion science: model systems, multi-site studies, focused meta-analysis and invasion syndromes. New Phytol 200:615–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lacoursière-Roussel A, Forrest BM, Guichard F et al (2012) Modeling biofouling from boat and source characteristics: a comparative study between Canada and New Zealand. Biol Invasions 14:2301–2314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lambert G (2007) Invasive sea squirts: a growing global problem. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 342:3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larson BM (2011) Embodied realism and invasive species. Elsevier, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lawton JH (1999) Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84(2):177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lins DM, Marco P, Andrade AF, Rocha RM (2018) Predicting global ascidian invasions. Divers Distrib 24(5):692–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Long HA, Grosholz ED (2015) Overgrowth of eelgrass by the invasive colonial tunicate Didemnum vexillum: consequences for tunicate and eelgrass growth and epifauna abundance. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 473:188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maggi E, Benedetti-Cecchi L, Castelli A et al (2015) Ecological impacts of invading seaweeds: a meta-analysis of their effects at different trophic levels. Divers Distrib 21:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maier DS (2012) What’s so good about biodiversity? A call for better reasoning about nature’s value. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maltagliati F, Lupi L, Castelli A, Pannacciulli FG (2016) The genetic structure of the exotic ascidian Styela plicata (Tunicata) from Italian ports, with a re-appraisal of its worldwide genetic pattern. Mar Ecol 37:492–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manríquez PH, Castilla JC, Ortiz V, Jara ME (2016) Empirical evidence for large-scale human impact on intertidal aggregations, larval supply and recruitment of Pyura praeputialis around the Bay of Antofagasta, Chile. Austral Ecol 41:701–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marraffini ML, Ashton GV, Brown CW et al (2017) Settlement plates as monitoring devices for non-indigenous species in marine fouling communities. Manag Biol Invasions 8:559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCann LD, Holzer KK, Davidson IC et al (2013) Promoting invasive species control and eradication in the sea: options for managing the tunicate invader Didemnum vexillum in Sitka, Alaska. Mar Pollut Bull 77:165–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pereyra PJ (2016) Revisiting the use of the invasive species concept: an empirical approach. Austral Ecol 41:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pereyra PJ, de la Barra P, Gastaldi M et al (2017) When the tiny help the mighty: facilitation between two introduced species, a solitary ascidian and a macroalga in northern Patagonia, Argentina. Mar Biol 164:185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poe S, Latella IM (2018) Empirical test of the native-nonnative distinction: native and nonnative assamblages of Anolis lizards are similar in morphology and phylogeny. Func Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Pergl J et al (2008) Geographical and taxonomic biases in invasion ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 23:237–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/
  51. Ricciardi A, Ryan R (2017) The exponential growth of invasive species denialism. Biol Invasions 20(3):549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Richardson DM, Pyšek P (2012) Naturalization of introduced plants: ecological drivers of biogeographical patterns. New Phytol 196:383–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Richardson DM, Ricciardi A (2013) Misleading criticisms of invasion science: a field guide. Divers Distrib 19:1461–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Richardson DM, Pyšek P, Rejmánek M et al (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Divers Distrib 6:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson TB, Havenga B, van der Merwe M, Jackson S (2017) Mind the gap–context dependency in invasive species impacts: a case study of the ascidian Ciona robusta. NeoBiota 32:127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rolheiser KC, Dunham A, Switzer SE et al (2012) Assessment of chemical treatments for controlling Didemnum vexillum, other biofouling, and predatory sea stars in Pacific oyster aquaculture. Aquaculture 364:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosa M, Holohan BA, Shumway SE et al (2013) Biofouling ascidians on aquaculture gear as potential vectors of harmful algal introductions. Harmful Algae 23:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. RStudio Team 2016. RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/. Version 1.1.345
  59. Russell JC, Blackburn TM (2017) The rise of invasive species denialism. Trends Ecol Evol 32:3–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Shackelford N, Hobbs RJ, Heller NE et al (2013) Finding a middle-ground: the native/non-native debate. Biol Conserv 158:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sherman CDH, Lotterhos KE, Richardson MF et al (2016) What are we missing about marine invasions? Filling in the gaps with evolutionary genomics. Mar Biol 163:198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simberloff D, Alexander J, Allendorf F et al (2011) Non-natives: 141 scientists object. Nature 475:36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Simkanin C, Davidson IC, Dower JF et al (2012) Anthropogenic structures and the infiltration of natural benthos by invasive ascidians. Mar Ecol 33:499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simkanin C, Fofonoff PW, Larson K et al (2016) Spatial and temporal dynamics of ascidian invasions in the continental United States and Alaska. Mar Biol 163:163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Simpson TS, Wernberg T, McDonald JI (2016) Distribution and localised effects of the invasive ascidian Didemnum perlucidum (Monniot 1983) in an urban estuary. PLoS ONE 11:e0154201CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith BE, Collie JS, Lengyel NL (2014) Fish trophic engineering: ecological effects of the invasive ascidian Didemnum vexillum (Georges Bank, northwestern Atlantic). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 461:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stefaniak LM, Whitlatch RB (2014) Life history attributes of a global invader: factors contributing to the invasion potential of Didemnum vexillum. Aquat Biol 21:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tait L, Inglis G, Seaward K (2018) Enhancing passive sampling tools for detecting marine bioinvasions. Mar Pollut Bull 128:41–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Thompson K (2014) Where do camels belong. Greystone books, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  70. Valéry L, Fritz H, Lefeuvre J-C, Simberloff D (2008) In search of a real definition of the biological invasion phenomenon itself. Biol Invasions 10:1345–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Warren RJ, King JR, Tarsa C et al (2017) A systematic review of context bias in invasion biology. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0182502CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Wickham H (2017) tidyverse: easily install and load ‘Tidyverse’ Packages. R package version 1.1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse
  73. Wong MC, Vercaemer B (2012) Effects of invasive colonial tunicates and a native sponge on the growth, survival, and light attenuation of eelgrass (Zostera marina). Aquat Invasions 7(3):315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. York A, Gallager S, Taylor R, et al (2008) Using a towed optical habitat mapping system to monitor the invasive tunicate species Didemnum sp. along the northeast continental shelf. In: OCEANS 2008. IEEE, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  75. Zabin CJ, Marraffini M, Lonhart SI et al (2018) Non-native species colonization of highly diverse, wave swept outer coast habitats in Central California. Mar Biol 165:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zhan A, Macisaac HJ, Cristescu ME (2010) Invasion genetics of the Ciona intestinalis species complex: from regional endemism to global homogeneity. Mol Ecol 19:4678–4694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhan A, Briski E, Bock DG et al (2015) Ascidians as models for studying invasion success. Mar Biol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-015-2734-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centro de Investigación Aplicada y Transferencia Tecnológica en Recursos Marinos Almirante Storni (CIMAS)Río NegroArgentina
  2. 2.Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Río NegroArgentina
  3. 3.Escuela Superior de Ciencias Marinas, Universidad Nacional del ComahueRío NegroArgentina

Personalised recommendations